Mitt Romney’s Company Buys Clear Channel
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, Media
This could either turn out to be Orwellian or completely benign. Here’s more from CNN Money:
NEW YORK (Reuters) — Clear Channel, the No. 1 U.S. radio station operator, said on Thursday it would be acquired by private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners, Bain Capital and the company’s founding Mays family for nearly $19 billion.Clear Channel, which operates 1,100 radio stations, is selling at a time when the radio advertising market is weak, and listeners are migrating to digital music, Internet media and satellite radio, hurting radio broadcasters.
By the way, Romney is part of Bain Capital. Deep pockets? Oh yes.
So, should politicians be involved with this kind of thing? Owning media empires? Smells really funny…like Vice Presidents giving no bid contracts to companies that they used to work for. It certainly isn’t illegal, but it feels unethical. Especially when you’re running for President.
We shall see…
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 16th, 2006 and is filed under General Politics, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 16th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Mitt resigned from Bain Capital a long time ago. It is not now nor never was Mitt’s company. Makes a good headline though. Reminds me of Mitt’s senate compaign, the could not any personal bad stuff so they went after something Bain Capital did. And even then he was gone.
Go after Mitt on gay marraige or aportion. There are some clear differences there. This simply reinforces the image of bad reporting.
November 16th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Mitt Romney, who will not be a politician in 8 weeks but may run for office, does not have to invest his money in radio stations to broadcast a message. And I can not imagine Romney turning Clear Channel into 1000 monosyllabic stations chanting “Mitt, Mitt, Mitt”.
Romney is smart and he will give people what they want, when they want it or like a bad restaurant we will all leave and go somewhere else. We all know the stations we prefer and Clear Channel will not control all the channels I have listed as favorites.
November 16th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Mitt Romney left Bain Capital like Dick Cheney left Halliburton. The Mittster needs a vehicle to broadcast his monthly gay-bash-fests. BTW, just why is Mitt Romney reversing pay raises for care givers who earn less than $25,000/yr? Is that the compassionate conservative in him?
November 16th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Word around Boston is that Bain Capital is still very interested in Mitt Romney’s future. I’m sure them controlling Clear Channel won’t hurt him.
November 16th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
I vote Orwellian.
November 16th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
There is a big difference between Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton and Romney’s private equity firm aquiring a percentage of a media company. Private equity firms are usually not in the job of managing the operation they acquire (not to say they couldn’t be very influential with a large enough stake), but rather structuring assets, capital and financing to max the value of the stock. They are in the money business not the radio business much like Gordon Gecko wasn’t in the airline business. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be good for Romney, but its wouldn’t be Orwellian good for him. Your “ethical” meter may be set so sensitive Justin that no Prez could have a retirement plan involving a mutual fund or any type of equity vehicle.
November 16th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Why wouldn’t Bain Capital and Bain & Co. want one of its former leaders have a shot at the Presidency. Last I heard we are a democracy and he has a right to garner any support he can. Sems to me getting assistance from long time friends is appropriate.
Mitt is an honest man with high integrity. He has his limitations, as all of us do, but he is a very impressive individual of substance. Listen to him and make up your own minds.
We have become very skeptical of politicians over the past several decades. But we shouldn’t be trying to snipe at those who choose to consider running at great sacrifice to themselves and their families. We need a President with smarts who has integrity. Let’s make sure we are trying to push them to the front of the line, not drive them away or question their motives as our first encounter with them.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Is this gay bashing?
Of course, we must conduct this debate with decency, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is so fundamental to society that it should not be decided by one court in Massachusetts or by one mayor in San Francisco. In America, the people should decide. In America, the people are fair and tolerant. Let the people decide.�
* Governor Mitt Romney, 02-24-2004 Press Release
“”Experience shows that kids have a far better chance of succeeding if they have a mother and a father at home. Of course, divorce or death means that there will always be many, many single parents; these single parents often make huge sacrifices and their kids can indeed succeed. But let’s do everything we can to encourage our kids to have their kids after they’ve married, not while they’re single and in school. We have sex education in our schools. Let’s also have abstinence education in our schools. Marriage and two parent families are fundamental to the development of children and to our success as a culture. We cannot afford to shrink from the timeless, priceless principles of human experience.”
Mitt Romney
Do children deserve to have a parent from both genders? Even with devoce, and death the child still has memories, photos, videos, and other ways of having some sort of memory of a mother and a father figure. Is everyone who thinks children need both a mother and a father going to be called a homophile? Are you going to keep hating them as much as you accuse them of hating you?
November 17th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Mike - Anything less than swinging the marriage doors open completely to gays will be considered a “gay-bashing”.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
You’d think that a large percentage of Americans are gay based on how much discussion that subject gets. The reality is that it’s a very small percentage of the population.
I say lets stop wasting valuable time and effort discussing “gay issues”. Let’s pick something that has a real impact to the population. Instead, lets discuss single parent families and what we can do for them, how to prevent it, how it impacts kids, and etc. Lets focus on passing laws and creating opportunities for this substantial and growing segment of the population. Who cares that gays can’t get “legally” married. Like that’s gonna doom our country.
And for the knee-jerkers, no I don’t hate gays. Their gripes just seem really, really small to me as compared to everything else that needs attention.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Yeah, like flag burning…
November 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Lewis - Of course you’re right and I too wish we were figuring out the important stuff rather than wasting time on this B.S. But ask yourself why ? Sure, not so many people are gay(been to NYC lately?) but so many people have strong feelings about it, so it POLARIZES us, and politicians can use it to FIRE UP THEIR BASE. It’s just a play and we are all just actors upon a stage… or somethin like that.
But when do we get to cast our vote for the substantial things ? Mr. Perros is right about the diff. btw Cheney and Romney, yet who’s our V.P. now? People can and do have lives outside of the beltway and shouldn’t be judged according to vague, insinuating references. They have voting records don’t they ? Yet it does set off alarms when public officials own the airwaves - if they actually did .
So, guess I sort of agree wth everyone here - does that make me a Centrtist ?
November 18th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
I think it’s very interesting how Mitt Romney gets so much attention for things he’s not involved with or at one time was involved. As for issues, I think there is more people that keep asking him if and when he’s running for President which he said won’t be until after the holidays. Either he is very charming and inteligent or there is absolutely nothing else to report about in the news. As for me, I’ve read that people are trying to get him to declare he’s running NOW! While it’s evident that he will probably run, the question is When? I want him to hurry up and throw his hat in the ring or get out. On the flip side, I want to have something to support since the other candidates don’t really connect with me much! If he doesn’t throw his hat in the ring, then it’s just speculation and I’m just wasting my time as well as yours. So Mitt Hurry up and decide so we all aren’t waiting around because if you do, then I won’t have to pick the lessor of the two evils McCain or Guliani.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
The issue of gay marriage was not brought forward by Mitt Romney. It was brought forward by an activist court. As a Governor, Mitt Romney does not have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines, not taking a position. His view is the same as it was when he ran for office - against gay marriage, and against civil unions. Whenever I have heard Mitt Romney on this subject, he talks about it in sociological terms, not in religious terms. I have never heard him utter an impolite word about gays. In fact, he goes out of his way to make the point that he respects all people, no matter their personal beliefs or lifestyles.
I think it’s admirable that Mitt Romney, in one of the bluest of the blue states, has the courage of his convictions on the subject of gay marriage, and that he hasn’t changed his opinion just because of a 4-3 decision from his state’s Supreme Judicial Court.
But I don’t think he spends a lot of time thinking about gay marriage, except for those times when he reacts to developments taking place around him. As I’ve watched him, it seems to me his real passion is making government efficient, solving problems, keeping taxes down and defending liberty at home and around the world. I think he’s been a great Governor.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
“Clear Channel, which operates 1,100 radio stations, is selling at a time when the radio advertising market is weak, and listeners are migrating to digital music, Internet media and satellite radio, hurting radio broadcasters.”
Wow… only 1,100 radio stations eh? Your independent liberal media at work… or not.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
I find the thought of this to be a repeat of the arrangement the Bussh Whitehouse had with Halliburton.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Your article makes sense extremely, I supports